get_page_text

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It only states the core function and a speed comparison. Missing details about side effects, permissions, failure modes, or behavior with non-textual content. Minimal behavioral disclosure.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, no unnecessary words. First sentence states purpose, second adds a key benefit. Highly efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core. However, it leaves gaps such as what constitutes 'visible text' and whether the tool fails gracefully on non-text pages. Could be more comprehensive given sibling tools.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter already well-described ('safari' or 'chrome', defaults to Safari). The tool description adds no extra semantic meaning, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description clearly states the verb ('Get'), resource ('all visible text'), and context ('current browser page'). It also distinguishes from siblings like screen_ocr by noting it's faster than OCR for web content.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides a clear usage context: use when you need text from web content, and prefer over OCR because it's faster. However, it lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance or mention of limitations (e.g., only works on selectable text, not images).

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.